= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Why didn't people (apparently?) understand the metaethics sequence? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (229)
If you mean what I think you mean, then I agree... I'm disregarding the commonly-referenced "morality" or "rightness" of acts that somehow exists independent of the values that various value-having systems have.
If it turns out that such a thing is important, then I'm importantly mistaken.
Do you believe such a thing is important?
If so, why?
I think that is a distinct possibility.
What's more important? What would serve as a good excuse for doing immoral things, or not knowing right from wrong?
The lack of anything depending on whether an act was immoral; the lack of any consequences to not knowing right from wrong.
Firstly, you are assuming something that many would disagree with: that an act with no consequences can be immoral, rather than being automatically morally neutral.
Secondly: even if true, that is a special case.
The importance of morality flows from its obligatoriness.
Sure. You asked a very open-ended question, I made some assumptions about what you meant. If you'd prefer to clarify your own meaning instead, I'd be delighted, but that doesn't appear to be your style.
The intended answer to "what is more important than morality", AKA "what is a good excuse for behaving immorally" was "nothing" (for all that you came up with ... nothing much). The question was intended to show that not only is morality important, it is ultimately so.
Thanks for clarifying.